Wojtek said:
>That is a very interesting summary of the SS debate. My question, though,
is whether that represents the actual intentions of the proponents of SS
reforms (and if, so how are those intentions known?), or an interpretation
of those intentions by commentators or adversaries.>
It's reflection of the rhetoric used by the privatizers. Just check out the main web site, which is attached to that of the Cato Institute.
Their intention is to dismantle the public sector, and they are targeting the largest, most debatable portion (old age insurance) of the largest public program. It is very different from the Reagan Administration's attack on disability insurance in 1981-83, which was much like the anti-welfare campaigns of the right then and now, or the more recent pressure on the Disability Insurance component of SS noted by Doyle.
Doyle is right in the sense that the privatizers are trying to scare people into thinking that Social Security will marginalize them because it will "not be there." But the issue is how the program works or doesn't work.
The right has even played with some left themes, such as noting that lower life expectancy among African-Americans means Old Age Insurance is a bad deal for them. The buried implication is that on average, they are going to die young anyway, so old age insurance is not a smart buy.
The basic policy objective is to divert some payroll tax revenue into 100 million individual, private accounts holding stocks and bonds. Besides wounding the public sector, this obviously generates untold fees and commissions for the financial industry (which has contributed gobs of money openly to Cato).
Understanding the distinction between Social Security and AFDC (now TANF) as gendered is a bit inexact, though there is something to it. A more precise comparison is Social Security versus Supplemental Security Income. SSI is an old age 'pension' for workers with little or no earnings history. The analogy to AFDC is the survivors insurance component of Social Security, which is not in play right now. If you're a woman married to a worker who dies, you may get SI. If you're married to a worker with no earnings who leaves, one way or another, you're looking at AFDC (now TANF). If you're married to somebody with dough who leaves or dies, you may get alimony, child support, or a bequest. Clearly a class distinction cuts across the gendered categories.
Social Security is gendered, but it would be wrong to call it a male program. Also wrong I would say is calling AFDC or TANF "social insurance." There is no explicit contribution. If we loosen the definition of social insurance to include AFDC, we deprive it of any real meaning. Social insurance is just welfare.
Social insurance is a political and economic success. U.S. welfare is foundering, as we know. So two cheers for social insurance.
This exchange has suggested to me that raising the gender issue might do some good in shutting down the privatization debate, besides being worthwhile in and of itself.
MBS